Theodore Roosevelt President, Conservationist, Man s...

Theodore Roosevelt: President, conservationist, man’s man, and an american hero. The things he did for our country before, during and after his presidency are beyond number. From his early days, he suffered from asthma and overcame it with sheer determination and regular exercise, proving his persistence (Cooper). He managed to get into Harvard, and was known to run for miles through the woods daily in order to keep physically fit. He used this same determination to enter politics and ascend to President, and also throughout his presidential terms. There is no doubt that Roosevelt contributed a great amount to society and had a lasting effect on the nation, effects that reverberate even to today. Many people assume that Theodore Roosevelt became President the same way the majority do, with a general election. In actuality, Roosevelt was first elected to the position of Vice President. Beforehand, he had been elected the governor of New York in 1898. He was often looked at as a very active governor, doing much towards stopping corruption in political offices. During his governance, he was known to crack down on big businesses, upsetting his republican party allies (PBS). In a plot to end his political career, his allies elected him to the Vice Presidency, a position often recognized as a career ending job. Running against a nobody from the democratic party, the republicans won by a landslide. Everything went according to plan until the assassination of President McKinleyShow MoreRelatedTheodore Roosevelt And His Influence On Our Lives1388 Words   |  6 PagesWho was this grad-school dropout who would preside as president of the United States and win a nobel peace prize? Theodore Roosevelt was an accomplished man that had tremendous influence on our lives today through his presidency as well as his political contributions. Over the next few pages we will take a closer look at the Theodore or â€Å"Teddy† Roosevelt’s accomplishments in life, his presidency and delve into his political policies. Theodore Roosevelt’s childhood was adventurous despite him sufferingRead MoreTheodore Roosevelt : The Great Impact On The United States1519 Words   |  7 PagesHailey Nguyen Biography of Theodore Roosevelt Period 5 would be Theodore Roosevelt was a president, father, hunter, author, and war hero. He played all these roles utilizing his hard work, integrity, and optimism that drove him to transform America. Theodore, nicknamed Teddy, made one of the greatest impacts on the United States by taking actions to reform the way people lived and ensure a successful future for the country. Teddy solved problems, and today’s problems, like global warming, isRead MoreEssay on Theodore Roosevelt1788 Words   |  8 Pages  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Theodore Roosevelt was a man on a mission. Maybe he didn ¹t know it, but he was. He affected millions of people throughout his life in many different ways. He was the leader of a famous military group, he was an author, a lawyer, and he was also the 26th president of the united states, all of these things ended up bringing him fame.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  He was born in New York City on October 27, 1858 into a rich Dutch family. He was always a cowboy at heart. Even though he was born in a big city his cowboy

Can Military Force Promote Humanitarian Values Free Essays

string(53) " forces where such a need exists \(Davidson, 2012\)\." Abstract Recent years have seen an increase in humanitarian interventions which have involved military operations. However is it feasible that the two operations, military and humanitarian are compatibleThis paper investigates whether this is the case and, to do so, assesses military force in terms of the values which underpin humanitarianism. This paper utilises a case study from the Libyan conflict to assess whether there is a politicised nature in the push for military led humanitarian operations, and examines whether there is a political undertone in the increased usage of military forces. We will write a custom essay sample on Can Military Force Promote Humanitarian Values? or any similar topic only for you Order Now It is argued that this undertone serves to undermine the possibility that military forces can promote humanitarian Introduction For several decades, humanitarian intervention has been a factor in military operations. This paper examines whether military forces can promote the values of humanitarianism during aid operations. To do so this paper will examine a number of elements and seeks to define humanitarianism. In doing so, the question of what role military forces can play is considered. This includes, for example, where military forces are deployed to affected regions or states and the role which they have been asked to conduct. This paper investigates whether the underlying aims of military forces are compatible with that of humanitarianism. This paper argues that they are not and that recent years have seen developments where military action has been wrongly justified on the grounds of humanitarian intervention. What is Humanitarianism? The concept of humanitarian intervention which utilises military force can be classed as a subjective one. Whilst some commentator’s class military led humanitarian interventions as being â€Å"the use of military force to protect foreign populations from mass atrocities or gross human rights abuses† (Waxman, 2013), others such as Marjanovic (2012) define the action as being â€Å"a state using military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed†. Yet despite the subjectivity, there is a series of components which can be extracted from these various definitions. These components include: a form of war or conflict, the potential that non-combatants will be negatively affected by this conflict; and where human rights abuses are considered to be taking place In essence, there are a number of factors which should be present when military led humanitarian assistance is being considered. Weiss (2012: 1) argues that there is an underlying notion of a â€Å"responsibility to protect† and that this has a tendency to dominate modern geo-political thinking, but instead it is arguable that the global community can be accused of cherry picking where it seeks to intervene. Weiss had previously argued that any intervention should incorporate aspects of post conflict redevelopment programming (Minear Weiss, 1995), yet since the perpetuation of military led humanitarian interventions, he has reconsidered his perspective to argue that such actions should now constitute â€Å"activities undertaken to improve the human condition† (Weiss, 2012: 1). This latter inclusion indicates that the shift in conflict dynamics, from one which is largely based on conventional warfare to the usage of non-state actors and combatants in an asymmetric confl ict zone has been a party to Weiss’s new perspective. Where values are considered, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2013) argue that these incorporate aspects of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. Essentially, therefore, it can be argued that where military forces are deployed to support humanitarian operations that it is essential they act according to these guiding principles. Role of the Military in Humanitarian Interventions Recent years, particularly since the end of the Cold War (Pattison, 2010), have seen military operations to support humanitarian interventions in a number of collapsed or failed states. These include, but are not limited to, Iraq, post-Gulf War One (1991 – 2003), Bosnia – Serbia (1995), Kosovo (1999), East Timor (1999) Somalia (2002), Haiti (2004), and Libya (2011) whilst other humanitarian interventions which have required military assistance can be considered to have taken place in post conflict Iraq and Afghanistan (Pattison, 2010). Weiss (2012) argues that the concept of humanitarian intervention has increased the potential for interventions into states in order to protect non-combatants from conflict. Contrary to this, the earlier reference to cherry picking provides a casing point when the political discourse which took place at the United Nations (UN) Security Council in relation to the ongoing conflict in Syria can be considered to be a case where the window o f opportunity for intervention has now closed, particularly since this conflict has led to the involvement of Islamic State and the Kurdish Peshmerga (Dagher, 2014). Increase in Military led Humanitarian Operations As stated, recent decades, particularly since the end of the Cold War, have seen a rise in the numbers of ethnically charged conflicts and where humanitarian interventions have been considered as necessary (Kaldor, 1998). In a review of this era, Kaldor noted that there had been a change in the dynamics of conflict and that the underpinning issue was of a series of belligerents and combatants which were not constrained by international regulations, such as the Geneva Convention protocols, Laws of Armed Conflict or relevant United Nations Charters (Kaldor, 1998). This changed dynamics has perpetuated and has spread to a number of conflict zones around the world, but has also seen a rise in the usage of conventional forces to support non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Similarly, Christoplos, Longley, and Slaymaker (2004) also noted a changed emphasis in humanitarian aid provision during this era. They argued that the underpinning programmes have been utilised to create a tripartite system of humanitarianism which incorporates rehabilitation (for both state and society), development of state and social infrastructures and relief programmes which provide for maintaining civil society during crisis periods. This particular perspective reinforces a belief that military interventions can help NGOs deliver aid by providing security (Seybolt, 2007). Nevertheless the incorporation of military activity into this mix has also resulted in a further complication since military operations deploy to aid zones with a preposition of maintaining operational security. This includes the potential for combating belligerent forces where such a need exists (Davidson, 2012). You read "Can Military Force Promote Humanitarian Values?" in category "Essay examples" Stability Operations Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) (2013) argues that the first decade of the twenty first century has seen a near trebling of military support for NGOs in countries which have been affected by war, natural disaster or where the state infrastructure has been affected sufficiently that it is unable to assist with recovery programmes. GHA also note that peacekeeping operations have increased at a similar rate, particular in the years discussed earlier by Kaldor (1998) to the present day. UK military doctrine emphasises that any military activities which has a humanitarian focus should incorporate stability operations (Ministry of Defence, 2011). In clarifying this position, the UK Ministry of Defence added that: â€Å"The peacekeeper fulfils a mandate with the strategic consent of the main warring parties, allowing a degree of freedom to fulfil its task in an impartial manner, while a sustainable peace settlement is pursued.† (Ministry of Defence, 2011: 1.1). Such a perspectiv e indicates that the simple inclusion of additional personnel to assist NGOs is not the primary role of military forces but instead is indicative of a more political role which is intended to shape the political landscape of the affected region or state where assistance is being provided. This aspect does not sit comfortably with the principles of humanitarianism as espoused by NGOs such as the ICRC (2013). This perspective is further enforced when it is noted that the Ministry of Defence cannot rule out military action during humanitarian operations. Doctrinal papers evidence that military operations will also incorporate war fighting components as well as security duties. This was the case in Afghanistan, which was a stabilisation operation during which the UK military â€Å"had the consent of the host nation government but no other warring party (Afghanistan: Taliban 2001 – present) [†¦] A military force may decide in such situations that the defeat of a specific enemy is essential to the success of the operation.† (Ministry of Defence, 2011: 1.1). Essentially, therefore, there is a political perspective which can serve to undermine any arguments of altruism during a humanitarian operation which is supported by military efforts. Should Military led Humanitarian Interventions be justified? The UN backed military operation in Libya during its recent uprising and civil conflict was arguably mandated via humanitarian intervention based upon aid relief and assistance (United Nations, 2011). However it is arguable thatthat this particular intervention was politically motivated since it is evident that the Gaddafi regime had previously irked those states (USA, UK France) which were at the forefront of the military aspect of intervention (Boulton, 2008). The argument put forward by the trio of states sought to ensure a quick resolution to the conflict and that a perpetuation of the conflict would lead to a humanitarian crisis. Kuperman (2011) notes that Resolution, 1973 allowed for a number of additional practices by military forces. These included, for example, allowing intervening forces to stabilise the Libyan conflict, to assist the undermining of the authority of the Gaddafi regime and to help bring the conflict to a swift conclusion. To achieve this Kuperman (2011) not es that Libyan state financial and economic assets were frozen, the regime was also subjected to an arms embargo (Kuperman, 2011). It is also to be noted that the USA, France and the UK also operated outside of the mandate provided by the UN by deploying private military contractors to fight alongside insurgents seeking to overthrow the Gaddafi regime (RT News, 2012). That said, the Libyan conflict has not ended and continues to dominate local Libyan politics and society. This outcome serves only to undermine the utilitarian role of humanitarianism. It is fair to suggest that the actions by military forces were more political than humanitarian and served only to perpetuate the US led policy of regime change. This is a factor which Williamson (2011) argues has resulted in military planners utilising military force within humanitarian relief efforts and which has served only to muddy the political and societal dynamics of any affected zone. Williamson’s (2011) argument can be considered in tandem with the British military doctrine which refuses to rule out combat efforts but in relation to the post-Cold War era which has seen non-state combatants realign the battlefield to one which compares directly to a counter insurgency warzone (US Government, 2012). Legal Issues Where the Libyan case study is considered, it is worthwhile noting that, previously, Goodman (2006) had argued that there is a clear contradiction between military interventions into any state using a guise of humanitarian purposes. Goodman (2006) furthers his argument by stating that there is no legal justification for a unilateral humanitarian intervention into another country, and that it is highly unlikely that such a move will ever be likely. The rationale behind this argument is that states then have the potential to militarily intervene in other states using humanitarianism as a justification for regime change or some other ulterior motive. It is to be noted that Goodman bases his arguments upon the dynamics of recent interventions in Kosovo and Iraq as well as the refusal to intervene in the Sudan or in Rwanda (Goodman, 2006). Similarly when attempts were made to intervene militarily under the auspice of humanitarianism in Syria, this was rebuffed by the UN General Assembly s ince it was suggested that those who sought to intervene (again, the USA, UK and France) were doing so out of a political motive which involve a war fighting phase as opposed to relieving suffering on the ground, indeed a part of the proposal was to arm anti Assad militias which were aligned to the al Qaeda franchise (Benotman and Blake, 2013). The outcome of this particular policy has been the evolution of Islamic State. Conclusion In conclusion, the incorporation of a military force to benefit humanitarian operations can serve to benefit the potential for aid relief via the provision of security escorts for NGOs when operating in hostile environments. However with recent decades seeing a vast increase in the preference for military led humanitarian operations, the potential for a conflation between humanitarian principles and the advancing of political aspirations of donor states cannot be denied. This has been the case in Libya where humanitarianism was presented as a causal justification for military interventions which were mostly politically or ideologically led. With the vales of humanitarianism incorporating impartiality and neutrality it is hard to see how military forces can promote humanitarian values, particularly when their presence may result in engaging with potential belligerent forces in order to stabilise a country or region so that NGOs can conduct their own operations successfully. Essentiall y, therefore the aims of military forces (and their political masters) are vastly different from aid agencies, this serve to provide confirmation that military forces cannot promote humanitarian values, purely by virtue of their own activities and nature of their work. Bibliography Benotman, N., and Blake, R. (2013) Jabhat al-Nusra: A Strategic Briefing, London: Quilliam Foundation. Boulton, A. (2008), Memoirs of the Blair Administration: Tony’s Ten Years, London: Simon Schuster. Christoplos, I., Longley, C. and Slaymaker, T., (2004) The Changing Roles of Agricultural Rehabilitation: Linking Relief, Development and Support to Rural Livelihoods, available at http://odi.org.uk/wpp/publications_pdfs/Agricultural_rehabilitation.pdf, (accessed on 13/11/14). Dagher, S., (2014) Kurds Fight Islamic State to Claim a Piece of Syria, (online), available at http://online.wsj.com/articles/kurds-fight-islamic-state-to-claim-a-piece-of-syria-1415843557, (accessed on 13/11/14). Davidson, J., (2012) Principles of Modern American Counterinsurgency: Evolution and Debate, Washington DC: Brookings Institute. Global Humanitarian Assistance, (2013) Counting the cost of humanitarian aid delivered through the military, London: Global Humanitarian Assistance. Goodman, R., (2006) Humanitarian Intervention and Pretexts for War, (J), American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100: 107 – 142. International Committee of the Red Cross, (2013) Humanitarian Values and Response to Crisis, (online), available at https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jmlz.htm, (accessed on 13/11/14). Kaldor, M., (1998) New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Cambridge: Polity Press. Kuperman, A., (2011) False Pretence for war in Libya, available at http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/14/false_pretense_for_war_in_libya/accessed on 13/11/14). Marjanovic, M., (2011) Is Humanitarian War the Exception?, (online), available at http://mises.org/daily/5160/Is-Humanitarian-War-the-Exception, (accessed on 13/11/14). Minear, L and Weiss, T.G., (1995) Mercy Under Fire: War and the Global Humanitarian Community, Boulder: Westview Press. Ministry of Defence, (2011) Peacekeeping: An evolving Role for the Military, London: HMSO. Pattison, M., (2010) Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility To Protect: Who Should, Oxford: Oxford University Press. RT News, (2012) Stratfor: Blackwater helps regime Change, (online), available at http://www.rt.com/news/stratfor-syria-regime-change-063/, (accessed on 13/11/14). Seybolt, T., (2007) Humanitarian Military Intervention: The Conditions for Success and Failure, Oxford: Oxford University Press. United Nations, (2011) Resolution 1973, (online), available at http://www.un.org/press/en/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution, (accessed on 13/11/14). US Government, (2012) Counter Insurgency, Virginia: Pentagon. Waxman, M., (2013) Is humanitarian military intervention against international law, or are there exceptions?, (online), available at http://www.cfr.org/international-law/humanitarian-military-intervention-against-international-law-there-exceptions/p31017, (accessed on 13/11/14). Weiss, T., (2012) Humanitarian Intervention, Cambridge: Polity Press. Williamson, J., (2011) Using humanitarian aid to ‘win hearts and minds’: a costly failure?, (J), International Committee of the Red Cross, Vol. 93, (884): 1035 – 1062. How to cite Can Military Force Promote Humanitarian Values?, Essay examples Can Military Force Promote Humanitarian Values Free Essays string(65) " belligerent forces where such a need exists \(Davidson, 2012\)\." Abstract Recent years have seen an increase in humanitarian interventions which have involved military operations. However is it feasible that the two operations, military and humanitarian are compatibleThis paper investigates whether this is the case and, to do so, assesses military force in terms of the values which underpin humanitarianism. This paper utilises a case study from the Libyan conflict to assess whether there is a politicised nature in the push for military led humanitarian operations, and examines whether there is a political undertone in the increased usage of military forces. We will write a custom essay sample on Can Military Force Promote Humanitarian Values? or any similar topic only for you Order Now It is argued that this undertone serves to undermine the possibility that military forces can promote humanitarian values. Introduction For several decades, humanitarian intervention has been a factor in military operations. This paper examines whether military forces can promote the values of humanitarianism during aid operations. To do so this paper will examine a number of elements and seeks to define humanitarianism. In doing so, the question of what role military forces can play is considered. This includes, for example, where military forces are deployed to affected regions or states and the role which they have been asked to conduct. This paper investigates whether the underlying aims of military forces are compatible with that of humanitarianism. This paper argues that they are not and that recent years have seen developments where military action has been wrongly justified on the grounds of humanitarian intervention. What is Humanitarianism? The concept of humanitarian intervention which utilises military force can be classed as a subjective one. Whilst some commentator’s class military led humanitarian interventions as being â€Å"the use of military force to protect foreign populations from mass atrocities or gross human rights abuses† (Waxman, 2013), others such as Marjanovic (2012) define the action as being â€Å"a state using military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed†. Yet despite the subjectivity, there is a series of components which can be extracted from these various definitions. These components include: a form of war or conflict, the potential that non-combatants will be negatively affected by this conflict; and where human rights abuses are considered to be taking place In essence, there are a number of factors which should be present when military led humanitarian assistance is being considered. Weiss (2012: 1) argues that there is an underlying notion of a â€Å"responsibility to protect† and that this has a tendency to dominate modern geo-political thinking, but instead it is arguable that the global community can be accused of cherry picking where it seeks to intervene. Weiss had previously argued that any intervention should incorporate aspects of post conflict redevelopment programming (Minear Weiss, 1995), yet since the perpetuation of military led humanitarian interventions, he has reconsidered his perspective to argue that such actions should now constitute â€Å"activities undertaken to improve the human condition† (Weiss, 2012: 1). This latter inclusion indicates that the shift in conflict dynamics, from one which is largely based on conventional warfare to the usage of non-state actors and combatants in an asymmetric confl ict zone has been a party to Weiss’s new perspective. Where values are considered, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2013) argue that these incorporate aspects of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. Essentially, therefore, it can be argued that where military forces are deployed to support humanitarian operations that it is essential they act according to these guiding principles. Role of the Military in Humanitarian Interventions Recent years, particularly since the end of the Cold War (Pattison, 2010), have seen military operations to support humanitarian interventions in a number of collapsed or failed states. These include, but are not limited to, Iraq, post-Gulf War One (1991 – 2003), Bosnia – Serbia (1995), Kosovo (1999), East Timor (1999) Somalia (2002), Haiti (2004), and Libya (2011) whilst other humanitarian interventions which have required military assistance can be considered to have taken place in post conflict Iraq and Afghanistan (Pattison, 2010). Weiss (2012) argues that the concept of humanitarian intervention has increased the potential for interventions into states in order to protect non-combatants from conflict. Contrary to this, the earlier reference to cherry picking provides a casing point when the political discourse which took place at the United Nations (UN) Security Council in relation to the ongoing conflict in Syria can be considered to be a case where the window of opportunity for intervention has now closed, particularly since this conflict has led to the involvement of Islamic State and the Kurdish Peshmerga (Dagher, 2014). Increase in Military led Humanitarian Operations As stated, recent decades, particularly since the end of the Cold War, have seen a rise in the numbers of ethnically charged conflicts and where humanitarian interventions have been considered as necessary (Kaldor, 1998). In a review of this era, Kaldor noted that there had been a change in the dynamics of conflict and that the underpinning issue was of a series of belligerents and combatants which were not constrained by international regulations, such as the Geneva Convention protocols, Laws of Armed Conflict or relevant United Nations Charters (Kaldor, 1998). This changed dynamics has perpetuated and has spread to a number of conflict zones around the world, but has also seen a rise in the usage of conventional forces to support non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Similarly, Christoplos, Longley, and Slaymaker (2004) also noted a changed emphasis in humanitarian aid provision during this era. They argued that the underpinning programmes have been utilised to create a tripartite system of humanitarianism which incorporates rehabilitation (for both state and society), development of state and social infrastructures and relief programmes which provide for maintaining civil society during crisis periods. This particular perspective reinforces a belief that military interventions can help NGOs deliver aid by providing security (Seybolt, 2007). Nevertheless the incorporation of military activity into this mix has also resulted in a further complication since military operations deploy to aid zones with a preposition of maintaining operational security. This includes the potential for combating belligerent forces where such a need exists (Davidson, 2012). You read "Can Military Force Promote Humanitarian Values?" in category "Essay examples" Stability Operations Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) (2013) argues that the first decade of the twenty first century has seen a near trebling of military support for NGOs in countries which have been affected by war, natural disaster or where the state infrastructure has been affected sufficiently that it is unable to assist with recovery programmes. GHA also note that peacekeeping operations have increased at a similar rate, particular in the years discussed earlier by Kaldor (1998) to the present day. UK military doctrine emphasises that any military activities which has a humanitarian focus should incorporate stability operations (Ministry of Defence, 2011). In clarifying this position, the UK Ministry of Defence added that: â€Å"The peacekeeper fulfils a mandate with the strategic consent of the main warring parties, allowing a degree of freedom to fulfil its task in an impartial manner, while a sustainable peace settlement is pursued.† (Ministry of Defence, 2011: 1.1). Such a perspectiv e indicates that the simple inclusion of additional personnel to assist NGOs is not the primary role of military forces but instead is indicative of a more political role which is intended to shape the political landscape of the affected region or state where assistance is being provided. This aspect does not sit comfortably with the principles of humanitarianism as espoused by NGOs such as the ICRC (2013). This perspective is further enforced when it is noted that the Ministry of Defence cannot rule out military action during humanitarian operations. Doctrinal papers evidence that military operations will also incorporate war fighting components as well as security duties. This was the case in Afghanistan, which was a stabilisation operation during which the UK military â€Å"had the consent of the host nation government but no other warring party (Afghanistan: Taliban 2001 – present) [†¦] A military force may decide in such situations that the defeat of a specific enemy is essential to the success of the operation.† (Ministry of Defence, 2011: 1.1). Essentially, therefore, there is a political perspective which can serve to undermine any arguments of altruism during a humanitarian operation which is supported by military efforts. Should Military led Humanitarian Interventions be justified? The UN backed military operation in Libya during its recent uprising and civil conflict was arguably mandated via humanitarian intervention based upon aid relief and assistance (United Nations, 2011). However it is arguable thatthat this particular intervention was politically motivated since it is evident that the Gaddafi regime had previously irked those states (USA, UK France) which were at the forefront of the military aspect of intervention (Boulton, 2008). The argument put forward by the trio of states sought to ensure a quick resolution to the conflict and that a perpetuation of the conflict would lead to a humanitarian crisis. Kuperman (2011) notes that Resolution, 1973 allowed for a number of additional practices by military forces. These included, for example, allowing intervening forces to stabilise the Libyan conflict, to assist the undermining of the authority of the Gaddafi regime and to help bring the conflict to a swift conclusion. To achieve this Kuperman (2011) not es that Libyan state financial and economic assets were frozen, the regime was also subjected to an arms embargo (Kuperman, 2011). It is also to be noted that the USA, France and the UK also operated outside of the mandate provided by the UN by deploying private military contractors to fight alongside insurgents seeking to overthrow the Gaddafi regime (RT News, 2012). That said, the Libyan conflict has not ended and continues to dominate local Libyan politics and society. This outcome serves only to undermine the utilitarian role of humanitarianism. It is fair to suggest that the actions by military forces were more political than humanitarian and served only to perpetuate the US led policy of regime change. This is a factor which Williamson (2011) argues has resulted in military planners utilising military force within humanitarian relief efforts and which has served only to muddy the political and societal dynamics of any affected zone. Williamson’s (2011) argument can be considered in tandem with the British military doctrine which refuses to rule out combat efforts but in relation to the post-Cold War era which has seen non-state combatants realign the battlefield to one which compares directly to a counter insurgency warzone (US Government, 2012). Legal Issues Where the Libyan case study is considered, it is worthwhile noting that, previously, Goodman (2006) had argued that there is a clear contradiction between military interventions into any state using a guise of humanitarian purposes. Goodman (2006) furthers his argument by stating that there is no legal justification for a unilateral humanitarian intervention into another country, and that it is highly unlikely that such a move will ever be likely. The rationale behind this argument is that states then have the potential to militarily intervene in other states using humanitarianism as a justification for regime change or some other ulterior motive. It is to be noted that Goodman bases his arguments upon the dynamics of recent interventions in Kosovo and Iraq as well as the refusal to intervene in the Sudan or in Rwanda (Goodman, 2006). Similarly when attempts were made to intervene militarily under the auspice of humanitarianism in Syria, this was rebuffed by the UN General Assembly s ince it was suggested that those who sought to intervene (again, the USA, UK and France) were doing so out of a political motive which involve a war fighting phase as opposed to relieving suffering on the ground, indeed a part of the proposal was to arm anti Assad militias which were aligned to the al Qaeda franchise (Benotman and Blake, 2013). The outcome of this particular policy has been the evolution of Islamic State. Conclusion In conclusion, the incorporation of a military force to benefit humanitarian operations can serve to benefit the potential for aid relief via the provision of security escorts for NGOs when operating in hostile environments. However with recent decades seeing a vast increase in the preference for military led humanitarian operations, the potential for a conflation between humanitarian principles and the advancing of political aspirations of donor states cannot be denied. This has been the case in Libya where humanitarianism was presented as a causal justification for military interventions which were mostly politically or ideologically led. With the vales of humanitarianism incorporating impartiality and neutrality it is hard to see how military forces can promote humanitarian values, particularly when their presence may result in engaging with potential belligerent forces in order to stabilise a country or region so that NGOs can conduct their own operations successfully. Essentiall y, therefore the aims of military forces (and their political masters) are vastly different from aid agencies, this serve to provide confirmation that military forces cannot promote humanitarian values, purely by virtue of their own activities and nature of their work. Bibliography Benotman, N., and Blake, R. (2013) Jabhat al-Nusra: A Strategic Briefing, London: Quilliam Foundation. Boulton, A. (2008), Memoirs of the Blair Administration: Tony’s Ten Years, London: Simon Schuster. Christoplos, I., Longley, C. and Slaymaker, T., (2004) The Changing Roles of Agricultural Rehabilitation: Linking Relief, Development and Support to Rural Livelihoods, available at http://odi.org.uk/wpp/publications_pdfs/Agricultural_rehabilitation.pdf, (accessed on 13/11/14). Dagher, S., (2014) Kurds Fight Islamic State to Claim a Piece of Syria, (online), available at http://online.wsj.com/articles/kurds-fight-islamic-state-to-claim-a-piece-of-syria-1415843557, (accessed on 13/11/14). Davidson, J., (2012) Principles of Modern American Counterinsurgency: Evolution and Debate, Washington DC: Brookings Institute. Global Humanitarian Assistance, (2013) Counting the cost of humanitarian aid delivered through the military, London: Global Humanitarian Assistance. Goodman, R., (2006) Humanitarian Intervention and Pretexts for War, (J), American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100: 107 – 142. International Committee of the Red Cross, (2013) Humanitarian Values and Response to Crisis, (online), available at https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jmlz.htm, (accessed on 13/11/14). Kaldor, M., (1998) New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Cambridge: Polity Press. Kuperman, A., (2011) False Pretence for war in Libya, available at http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/14/false_pretense_for_war_in_libya/accessed on 13/11/14). Marjanovic, M., (2011) Is Humanitarian War the Exception?, (online), available at http://mises.org/daily/5160/Is-Humanitarian-War-the-Exception, (accessed on 13/11/14). Minear, L and Weiss, T.G., (1995) Mercy Under Fire: War and the Global Humanitarian Community, Boulder: Westview Press. Ministry of Defence, (2011) Peacekeeping: An evolving Role for the Military, London: HMSO. Pattison, M., (2010) Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility To Protect: Who Should, Oxford: Oxford University Press. RT News, (2012) Stratfor: Blackwater helps regime Change, (online), available at http://www.rt.com/news/stratfor-syria-regime-change-063/, (accessed on 13/11/14). Seybolt, T., (2007) Humanitarian Military Intervention: The Conditions for Success and Failure, Oxford: Oxford University Press. United Nations, (2011) Resolution 1973, (online), available at http://www.un.org/press/en/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution, (accessed on 13/11/14). US Government, (2012) Counter Insurgency, Virginia: Pentagon. Waxman, M., (2013) Is humanitarian military intervention against international law, or are there exceptions?, (online), available at http://www.cfr.org/international-law/humanitarian-military-intervention-against-international-law-there-exceptions/p31017, (accessed on 13/11/14). Weiss, T., (2012) Humanitarian Intervention, Cambridge: Polity Press. Williamson, J., (2011) Using humanitarian aid to ‘win hearts and minds’: a costly failure?, (J), International Committee of the Red Cross, Vol. 93, (884): 1035 – 1062. How to cite Can Military Force Promote Humanitarian Values?, Essay examples

Essay on Reconstruction free essay sample

The outcome of Reconstruction has been labeled a success and a failure both. When Reconstruction started in 1 865, we had just finished fighting in the Civil War. Reconstruction was a time period of trying to put the pieces of a broken America back together. It was a point in time that America tried to become a full running country once again. It wasnt easy, though. Death was a recent memory still burned into everybody minds, turning into resentment. The South was almost non-existent, both politically and economically, trying to find a way back in.Amongst all this, there were almost four million former Essay _-. :. Cur_ slaves who didnt have a clue how to make a living on their own freed by the thirteenth Amendment in 1 865, and soon became political leaders. Something had to be done, and nobody made it. A few leaders came forward with their own ideas for Recons each of them were sure that their idea was the right one. We will write a custom essay sample on Essay on Reconstruction or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Abram the president at the time, was the first person to come up with Reconstruction. The Lincoln Plan was an open one, and it stats. Retain criteria were met a Confederate state could return to the Tate had to have ten percent of voters accept emancipation of loyalty to the union, and high ranking officers of state could mol voting rights unless the president said so. Abraham Lincoln WA before he could test his plan. After his death the Republican Pa themselves The Radical Republicans, emerged with their own ICC Reconstruction. They had two main objectives. First, they were South and blamed them for the Civil War and wanted to punish Second, they wanted to help the four million freed slaves. They slaves needed protection and wanted to do that.There were the Radical Republican leaders. They were Thatched Stevens, Char and President Andrew Johnson. Thatched was a political man v place in the House of Representatives. His main concern was TTT opportunity for slaves. He wanted them to know how to make own. Charles Sumner was a senator who mostly fought for Affair political rights and their citizenship. He thought that the All me equal part of the Constitution should be for everybody. For Mac Most likely due to the fact that Johnson was Lincoln Vice Press( Reconstruction plan that just about mirrored the former PresideRadicals did not approve, though. They felt he went over the In pardons, and he wasnt paying attention to the major issue, the slaves. In 1868 Johnson was impeached. Congress stepped in v plan for Reconstruction and it was passed. They had two main I though. First, the troops were to move in and reside in the con in the South. Second, any State that wanted back into the Noir allowed to do so if they changed their 14th amendment. They a agree that everybody born in the U. S were citizens and they we treated fairly and as equals by the law.

The virtue of Religion Essays - Spirituality, Human Behavior

The virtue of Religion Religion comes from the Latin verb religre, to bind , so that we in religi on are bound to God . Religion implies that there is a supreme being that has control over our destinies and the universe. It implies se condly that man has recogn ized that there is such a being, and that he needs H is help, and that he freely subjects his life to Him by acts of homage and love which is to worship Him. When we do this habitually we possess the virtue of religion. Religion as a virtue is a, "Quality of mind and heart which inclines us to pay to God the worship due to Him." The object, motive, and act are the three elements in the notion of re ligion. God is the object. The Blessed V irgin and saints are all secondary to him becau se of their nearness to Him. Our motive is our complete dependence on God. Worship is the act of religion and we worship Him by our love and devotion. We have a strict duty to worship God becaus e he is our creato r; t herefore , H e has the right to demand our love, honor, reverence , and complete submission . We owe G od our int ernal as wel l as our external worship . Without external worship internal worship soon becomes extinct . External worship is saying prayers and not thinking about them which means nothing to God. When we put them bo th together it is very powerful, but saying prayers externally is good because it keeps us in the habit. Sometimes we express our external pray ers to arouse our internal prayer s , and we need to express pray er external ly to arouse others around us. When we utilize the sacrifices of the mass and the sacraments God wants us to profess them externally and internally. There are two different k inds of prayer, direct and indirect. When we pray directly to God th at is a direct act of religion; a n indirect act of religion is when we honor him through the saints. Direct acts of religion Prayer is an act of worship, and prayer is defined as raising our minds and hearts to God. Prayer is the simplest kind of worship. Prayer may be vocal or mental; it is vocal wh en we speak it aloud, or it can be mental when we meditate . The act of mental pray er is not necessary but it is very powerful and it will advance us in virtue. There are four great objections of prayer; adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and contrition. The most valuable act to God is adoration because it is purely love for God. Thanksgiving is giving thanks to God for whatever he has done for us . Petition is asking God to do something for us. It is the most used prayer. We do contrition when we have offended God so that we may be forgiven . The world around us isn't regulated by chance and fate ; i t is by the power and mercy of God. That is why we pray to God for rain or anything else that we need to happen in our daily lives. We pray to God not that he does not know what we need, but because He wants us to pray to Him. He expresses this wish in (Matt. 6, 32), "Your Father knoweth that you have need of these things," yet He also told us "that we ought always to pray and not to faint," (Luke 18, 1). St. Augustine says that we may pray for whatever we lawfully desire, and he also said that we should pray for all men. If someone wants to help someone then t he most powerful thing that he can do is pray for them. We are never allowed to not pray for our enemies . God counsels us on our prayers, and He says "Pray for them that persecute and calumniate you." Since prayer is speaking to God we should pray with attention and devotion. Merely speak ing words is not a prayer, we should have